except that's not really an argumentum ad populum. argumentum ad populum is like saying well a majority of californians voted for prop 8 so it's ok to deny gays their rights. the fallacy deals with a majority supporting an opinion where just because there is a majority in favor of it does not mean it's correct. what's actually occurring there is a straw man argument where instead of debating her points, bill is completely sidestepping them by offering a different point to argue.

She's concise, straightforward and blunt when needed. I try not to miss her commentary. Never boring and if she discusses something I question, she usually gives enough of a background to research it pretty easily.

I like her better than Olbermann. Though they have essentially the same views, he comes across as a rabid pit bull lunging a the end of a heavy chain with foam and spittle flying in every direction. Though a little on the smug side sometimes, she's clever and funny.

GuerrillaSodomite saidI like her better than Olbermann. Though they have essentially the same views, he comes across as a rabid pit bull lunging a the end of a heavy chain with foam and spittle flying in every direction. Though a little on the smug side sometimes, she's clever and funny.

Agreed... Keith Olbermann's delivery just riles me up and gets me furious, which I suppose is the objective of his show. At least Rachel Maddow, in her wry but even delivery, gets me to not only think critically about but also to laugh at the ludicrousness of some of the things that idiot O'Reilly says and does. It's much easier to digest.

Rachel Maddow is good at what she does. That being said, what SHE does is the very same thing Bill O'Reilly does. The only difference is that she presents her viewpoint as fact from the left, while Bill O'Reilly does it from the right. She's good at putting her own special brand of SPIN on any story she reports on, using that snide "everybody else is stupid and I'm a brilliant lesbian" persona. Again, I enjoy watching Rachel Maddow, but I'm not fooled by her anymore than I am fooled by Mr. O'Reilly. Of course, another difference is that millions more people watch Bill O'Reilly than watch Rachel Maddow. Rachel Maddow would like you to believe that doesn't count for anything. Sorry, Rachel, but it does.

creyente saidBill really needs to stop tangling with Rachel, he's just not equipped for this battle.

He doesn't realize that not everyone will back down because he calls them names.

In this fight he will actually have to form a coherent thought which is not really his forté.

Except he will always win, with his larger audience, that will believe anything he says.

So while I agree with Maddow, and with the comments supporting her above, she will always lose to O'Reilly. Because this has nothing to do with facts & logic, but with popularity & fans.

That is what American TV is today. It's about my guy versus your guy, or gal, so let's not let thinking get in the way. I've made up my mind before I turned on the TV, the rest is just reinforcement for what I already thought. I'm here to cheer, not to consider.

And that is the nature of all political debate in the US today. So good job, Rachel, but it's all for naught.

CuriousJockAZ saidOf course, another difference is that millions more people watch Bill O'Reilly than watch Rachel Maddow. Rachel Maddow would like you to believe that doesn't count for anything. Sorry, Rachel, but it does.

Haha, you missed exactly the point, by repeating the "ad populum" fallacy. The joke is on you!

No, I didn't miss a beat, Viv. I just didn't fall for yet another attempt on her part to play down the fact that her viewership is a fraction of O'Reilly's. It's called "Minimizing The Cold Hard Reality" in order to make it not seem like it matters.

No, I didn't miss a beat, Viv. I just didn't fall for yet another attempt on her part to play down the fact that her viewership is a fraction of O'Reilly's. It's called "Minimizing The Cold Hard Reality" in order to make it not seem like it matters.

CuriousJockAZ saidRachel Maddow is good at what she does. That being said, what SHE does is the very same thing Bill O'Reilly does. The only difference is that she presents her viewpoint as fact from the left, while Bill O'Reilly does it from the right. She's good at putting her own special brand of SPIN on any story she reports on, using that snide "everybody else is stupid and I'm a brilliant lesbian" persona. Again, I enjoy watching Rachel Maddow, but I'm not fooled by her anymore than I am fooled by Mr. O'Reilly. Of course, another difference is that millions more people watch Bill O'Reilly than watch Rachel Maddow. Rachel Maddow would like you to believe that doesn't count for anything. Sorry, Rachel, but it does.

No, you are incorrect. Rachel consistently backs her opinions with facts, while Bill backs his opinions with more of his opinions.

And ratings do matter ... to advertisers, but not to anyone else. They certainly have nothing to do with this debate, though the subject is a perfect way to derail the topic at hand.

Fox News is the only conservative national cable news network. If there's only one network that caters to a specific audience, that audience will only watch that network. Get it? There is also the issue of viewer demographics, which should not be overlooked. The type of individual watching O'Reilly, and Fox News in general, falls into a very specific demographic.

CuriousJockAZ saidOf course, another difference is that millions more people watch Bill O'Reilly than watch Rachel Maddow. Rachel Maddow would like you to believe that doesn't count for anything. Sorry, Rachel, but it does.

Haha, you missed exactly the point, by repeating the "ad populum" fallacy. The joke is on you!

No, I didn't miss a beat, Viv. I just didn't fall for yet another attempt on her part to play down the fact that her viewership is a fraction of O'Reilly's. It's called "Minimizing The Cold Hard Reality" in order to make it not seem like it matters.

How does it matter exactly? (and try not to answer by repeating the fallacy that the majority must be right).

Let me put it this way...I guess those millions that DON'T watch Rachel Maddow, and who prefer O'Reilly, just don't GET her intellectual superiority

I'm not saying either host is right or wrong, in fact, I think the actual truth probably lays somewhere in the middle.

reppaT saidFox News is the only conservative national cable news network. If there's only one network that caters to a specific audience, that audience will only watch that network. Get it? There is also the issue of viewer demographics, which should not be overlooked. The type of individual watching O'Reilly, and Fox News in general, falls into a very specific demographic.

Yes, judging by the advertisers, it is the kind of demographic needing knee and hip replacements.

CuriousJockAZ said Of course, another difference is that millions more people watch Bill O'Reilly than watch Rachel Maddow. Rachel Maddow would like you to believe that doesn't count for anything. Sorry, Rachel, but it does.

No, it really doesn´t. Sometimes you come across as reasonable, other times moronic. In this particular case (Fox inventing stories to scare conservative right wingers) the number of viewers a show has has NO relation to the point at debate.

CuriousJockAZ said Of course, another difference is that millions more people watch Bill O'Reilly than watch Rachel Maddow. Rachel Maddow would like you to believe that doesn't count for anything. Sorry, Rachel, but it does.

No, it really doesn´t. Sometimes you come across as reasonable, other times moronic. In this particular case (Fox inventing stories to scare conservative right wingers) the number of viewers a show has has NO relation to the point at debate.